If IGx can't solve the gun issue, who can?

[johno]

Anyone following these mass murders must know that many of these monsters are obsessed with body count and with topping the accomplishments of their predecessors. The Copycat is strong in these ones. They study and learn.

SO...
Let's outlaw the mention of their names, life history, or the total death toll.

(I want to hear all the the 2nd Amendment infringers cry and sputter.)

I rather doubt you will hear much sputtering. There's strong evidence that heavy coverage of mass shootings inspires copycats. There's a way of informing the public that doesn't involve posting the asshole's name, manifesto, and selfies all over for a month.

So you support a law to that effect?

If over-hyped coverage is shown to provoke copycats, of course.

Sir, I salute you for your honesty.

[Grandpa's Spells]

I don't see how this is particularly controversial. We already have any number of restrictions on press reporting. We don't let journalists publish literally anything. In most cases (POWs, ISIS Propganda, rape victims, race-baiting), they do a good job either self-regulating or being regulated/legislated, but for TV coverage of mass shootings they've failed. You can be factually accurate without de facto glorification of murderers.

[dead man walking]

it is curious to me the ease with which you appear to be slipping into censorship.

the press is neither making guns nor shooting people. restricting the press' ability to report and my ability to know what is going on seems an awfully indirect way to address gun violence.

it appears that the first amendment is easily violable but the second isn't at all.

seeahill never should have been allow to write about gacy.

[Grandpa's Spells]

it is curious to me the ease with which you appear to be slipping into censorship.

the press is neither making guns nor shooting people. restricting the press' ability to report and my ability to know what is going on seems an awfully indirect way to address gun violence.

it appears that the first amendment is easily violable but the second isn't at all.

seeahill never should have been allow to write about gacy.

To start, I generally don't believe in slippery slope arguments, and this problem has been around for a while now, so I don't think I'm "slipping into censorship" here. See here for a clip criticizing how TV media screws this up. Around 1:45 you see a forensic psychologist describing how the typical 24/7 coverage of a mass shooting actually provokes more shootings.

You can have factually accurate reporting that informs the public and still be responsible. Current coverage is not responsible. Incentives work against responsible reporting, and coverage is ridiculous in a way it wasn't pre-24/7 News Channels.

[Grandpa's Spells]

Let me tell you a story. The day after Columbine, I was interviewed for the Tom Brokaw news program. The reporter had been assigned a theory and was seeking sound bites to support it. "Wouldn't you say," she asked, "that killings like this are influenced by violent movies?" No, I said, I wouldn't say that. "But what about 'Basketball Diaries'?" she asked. "Doesn't that have a scene of a boy walking into a school with a machine gun?" The obscure 1995 Leonardo Di Caprio movie did indeed have a brief fantasy scene of that nature, I said, but the movie failed at the box office (it grossed only $2.5 million), and it's unlikely the Columbine killers saw it.
The reporter looked disappointed, so I offered her my theory. "Events like this," I said, "if they are influenced by anything, are influenced by news programs like your own. When an unbalanced kid walks into a school and starts shooting, it becomes a major media event. Cable news drops ordinary programming and goes around the clock with it. The story is assigned a logo and a theme song; these two kids were packaged as the Trench Coat Mafia. The message is clear to other disturbed kids around the country: If I shoot up my school, I can be famous. The TV will talk about nothing else but me. Experts will try to figure out what I was thinking. The kids and teachers at school will see they shouldn't have messed with me. I'll go out in a blaze of glory."
In short, I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. I commended the policy at the Sun-Times, where our editor said the paper would no longer feature school killings on Page 1. The reporter thanked me and turned off the camera. Of course the interview was never used. They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

[dead man walking]

it is curious to me the ease with which you appear to be slipping into censorship.

the press is neither making guns nor shooting people. restricting the press' ability to report and my ability to know what is going on seems an awfully indirect way to address gun violence.

it appears that the first amendment is easily violable but the second isn't at all.

seeahill never should have been allow to write about gacy.

To start, I generally don't believe in slippery slope arguments, and this problem has been around for a while now, so I don't think I'm "slipping into censorship" here. See here for a clip criticizing how TV media screws this up. Around 1:45 you see a forensic psychologist describing how the typical 24/7 coverage of a mass shooting actually provokes more shootings.

You can have factually accurate reporting that informs the public and still be responsible. Current coverage is not responsible. Incentives work against responsible reporting, and coverage is ridiculous in a way it wasn't pre-24/7 News Channels.

so you're going to legislate "responsible" coverage.

what other "irresponsible" coverage should we eliminate while we're fixing things?

[Grandpa's Spells]

so you're going to legislate "responsible" coverage.

what other "irresponsible" coverage should we eliminate while we're fixing things?

Examples already cited above. This isn't new territory.

[DrDonkeyLove]

it is curious to me the ease with which you appear to be slipping into censorship.

the press is neither making guns nor shooting people. restricting the press' ability to report and my ability to know what is going on seems an awfully indirect way to address gun violence.

it appears that the first amendment is easily violable but the second isn't at all.

seeahill never should have been allow to write about gacy.

To start, I generally don't believe in slippery slope arguments, and this problem has been around for a while now, so I don't think I'm "slipping into censorship" here. See here for a clip criticizing how TV media screws this up. Around 1:45 you see a forensic psychologist describing how the typical 24/7 coverage of a mass shooting actually provokes more shootings.

You can have factually accurate reporting that informs the public and still be responsible. Current coverage is not responsible. Incentives work against responsible reporting, and coverage is ridiculous in a way it wasn't pre-24/7 News Channels.

so you're going to legislate "responsible" coverage.

what other "irresponsible" coverage should we eliminate while we're fixing things?

I would support shaming the MSM to do the right thing via social media but no official restrictions at all. They don't report the names of the victims of sex crimes. Many of them won't even report the race of a suspect when they give descriptions. Surely they can dial back mass murder glorification.

[milosz]

Without looking up anything, someone list the last 20 mass shooters and their locations.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Without looking name the last 20 starting quarterbacks on the winning Super Bowl team, or the last 20 academy awards for Director.

If general recall is any kind of test of significance, most people couldn't get over 50% on shit most Americans are inundated with. Yet to someone who cares deeply about this shit, these names are clearly important. I would bet even money or better, Dylan Kleebold could have run down a list of faves.

[DrDonkeyLove]

Without looking up anything, someone list the last 20 mass shooters and their locations.

The OR dipshit
Racist hillbilly in SC
Nutty fucking black guy w/a shotgun in DC Navy Yard
Newtown animal
Major Hassan Fuckacamel at Ft. Hood
Other camel fucker who went after Nat'l Guard and recruitment facilities recently
A few assorted kill the family and then myself types
A few assorted gang bangers having good clean fun

I remember a few names but don't want to write them down. This should be good for 10ish.

More importantly, you must have some kind of point.

[dead man walking]

so you're going to legislate "responsible" coverage.

what other "irresponsible" coverage should we eliminate while we're fixing things?

Examples already cited above. This isn't new territory.

would facebook and twitter also be regulated?

are you proposing only to sanction the messenger not the speaker?

what if a dick says something stupid on live tv? will everything now have a tape delay, with lawyers assessing content? we could name your poposal "the lawyer full-employment act." when jeb bush say "stuff happens" regarding a mass shooting, is that irresponsible? does the tv show get busted? can someone just shoot jeb?

as for citing roger ebert, a pimp for movies, about how movies are inconsequential in affecting attitudes: am i supposed to find that persuasive?

[Grandpa's Spells]

DMW, you see to be reading all this through a weird filter, or I'm particularly unclear today. Ebert's post was about news saturation, not movies. Mine was about hysterical 24/7 news coverage. Nobody's talking about FB and Twitter.

[dead man walking]

facebook and twitter are now news outlets, old man. as is you tube.

i stand by my reference to ebert as pimp. the quotation says, in part:

I said, events like Columbine are influenced far less by violent movies than by CNN, the NBC Nightly News and all the other news media, who glorify the killers in the guise of "explaining" them. . . . They found plenty of talking heads to condemn violent movies, and everybody was happy.

[Blaidd Drwg]

when jeb bush say "stuff happens" regarding a mass shooting, is that irresponsible?

No. This is probably the ONLY enlightened take away in the discussion.

This happened



This happened.



This happened



Shit happens. A lot of Bad Shit. The spasmodic reaction to tragedy is THE ONLY control we have.

Jeb Bush is the fuckin Buddha compared to most of the people in this "debate"

[milosz]

Without looking up anything, someone list the last 20 mass shooters and their locations.

The OR dipshit
Racist hillbilly in SC
Nutty fucking black guy w/a shotgun in DC Navy Yard
Newtown animal
Major Hassan Fuckacamel at Ft. Hood
Other camel fucker who went after Nat'l Guard and recruitment facilities recently
A few assorted kill the family and then myself types
A few assorted gang bangers having good clean fun

I remember a few names but don't want to write them down. This should be good for 10ish.

More importantly, you must have some kind of point.

Yes, you remember the events. (Though that's not 'the last 10' so you don't even recall some of the events). The events are notorious, not the killers - they're quickly forgotten. You can't make people stop remembering tragic events.

A ban on saying someone's name is as meaningless and pointless as banning guns based on aesthetics.

[DARTH]

A ban on saying someone's name is as meaningless and pointless as banning guns based on aesthetics.

Damn! Good one!

[Protobuilder]

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who scream that any kind of legislation on guns being an infringement on the Second are the same people who want "something done" to limit the First.

And vice versa (usually).

[DrDonkeyLove]

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who scream that any kind of legislation on guns being an infringement on the Second are the same people who want "something done" to limit the First.

And vice versa (usually).

Increasing freedom in all areas is unAmerican.

A great American philosopher offers a more enlightened view.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXnDbOpxU4[/youtube]

[DARTH]

It never ceases to amaze me that the same people who scream that any kind of legislation on guns being an infringement on the Second are the same people who want "something done" to limit the First.

And vice versa (usually).

I don't know too many people who are pro 2nd Amendment who want to limit the 1st? I do know a few who are anti 2nd who claim to be pro 1st but then talk about banning "hate Speech" Flags and the word "Nigger".

But there are short-sighted assholes of all stripes.

The US Constitution is Supreme, it beats the Bible by a mile and it should be ruthlessly enforced EXCEPT we should never let our enemies and foreigners use it against us. A jawa caught out of uniform has no fucking rights, an American working with our enemies does have rights.

It's for telling the Government it's limits, citizens their rights and welcome guest how they will be treated.

I am getting sick of some people who claim to be pro 2nd and want to invoke the 4th and 5th Amendments for themselves but want to fuck over the 4th and 5th rights of others because thy think their $0.00000001 they pay for a program someone qualifies for is living on "their" money. The 4th and 5th are a part of that great American tenant of "Non of your fucking business, unless you have actual probable cause and a warrant!" Advocate to elemente the programs but you don’t fuck with citizens who have broken no laws. (Besides the real dirtbags on them fuck up in other ways and are easy to lock up.)

I am so sick of the demonising of the "1%" but also many Conservatives demonising of the working poor and indigent on the pure face of it. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face and makes more poor folks who are actually pretty conservative in many areas go to the Dems. No one wants to vote for the side they precieve hates them.

Eh, end of rant.

[Protobuilder]

The same people who were saying the 14th was beyond reproach a few weeks ago are now saying that the 2nd is outdated. However, I've seen even more people who would fight to defend the 2nd who say that "we need to limit what the media can report".

I'm surprised to hear you say that Americans working with the country's enemies has rights. Several years ago when Obama declared that he is able to serve as judge, jury and executioner for Americans who step outside the borders of the country without them even knowing it was coming, there was exactly zero clamour from the peasants. However, say that perhaps buying a gun should be licensed or regulated 1/3 as much as buying a car and people are reaching for their blood pressure meds.

[Yes I Have Balls]

1. Establish a much more organized system for the treatment of mental health issues. The old way of keeping a mentally ill person in medical lockdown and sending them home with a bag of over-priced pharmaceuticals ain't working.

2. Everyone that owns a gun should be licensed to own one - just like a driver's license, but with stricter continuing education/training/safety bi-annual follow-ups.

3. Every single gun must be registered (with a fee) and registered in a national database. This data gets updated every time a gun gets sold or bought from private citizen, gun shop, or gifted.

4. Much, much more thorough background checks. Want a gun? Waive your right to privacy for your medical records and police records.



5. Get through the last three (though I think No. 1 might be the most important) and we need to look to loosen the concealed carry/open carry laws. More sane, trained, aware people with access to handguns is likely not a bad thing.



Oh, No. 6 - Don't outlaw spoons. No one gets obese from eating foods with a spoon. Outlaw forks.

[Protobuilder]

What happens in a 'background check'? Would that really prevent shootings of the mass killing sort the media loves or the accidental discharge in the home? I've said it myself that background checks need to be done but I have no idea what it would actually do to prevent anything. If you have a criminal record, are you forbidden from purchase? What sort of criminal record? Mental health issues? What issues, how severe and for how long? Is this a rubber stamp kind of thing (i.e. this Darth dude is insane and will never be able to own a gun in his life) or is it able to be reviewed (i.e. BD appears less bitchy now that he's off Facebook; come back in another six months)?

[Boris]

Background checks won't do anything to stop a thug who gets a gun by stealing it, or buying it from a shady FFL, or has his grandma buy it for him... Not that I'm against checks, just sayin'.

[syaigh]

I think one of the things we fail to recognize is that sometimes people commit murder because they want to kill people. They are killers plain and simple. It brings them pleasure. We like to fantasize that these killers were driven to it by some sort of other inflicted suffering or mental illness. We dont like to think that killing people is something a good number of law abiding citizens not only think about, but fantasize about it. Masturbate thinking about it. Glorify themselves in fantasize about shattering the peace and creation fear. We think ISIS is so foreign and scary and the product of an insane religious perversion. We have many in our own country with the same disease: bloodlust. only its not a disease, its a natural part of human nature. The real question is this: how do we keep it in check? How are we as a society encouraging it?